The community is divided as to whether I should leave up the following blog due to the stir it created. I will leave it for now, but let me say that the publisher in question has been very gracious. I’ve removed any reference to them in particular. My understanding is that they will take the page in question down.

I also will say that my tone was perhaps harsh and I regret that, but I will leave the post so you can make your own judgment and follow my main point, which was directed only to the guidelines below, inclusive of words like Priest, Miracle, Angel, and Father.

ORIGINAL BLOG

I recently came across a web page that rocked my world. In the worst of ways.

It’s the writing guidelines for a major publisher of Christian fiction. Interestingly it was another major publisher that brought the web page to my attention. They were as taken back as me. There was something disturbing about what showed up on the page before us. Something offensive to all of us.

The page had been making the rounds and starting to cause a stir–people were appalled. I wondered why I and so many others felt offended, it was, after all, just one company’s rightful guideline for novels that appeal to a massive romance market, which I personally rather like (Romance, that is

First of all, let me make it clear that nothing in this blog is directed to novelists or writers, as I have the highest respect for any who make a living slaving over words and certainly wouldn’t want to discourage any one who has successfully published a novel — I know how difficult that is and I love you all!

These comments are directed only to a public page found on the internet. Why do these guidelines which are meant to keep readers from being offended stir up such offense among so many others? I searched my heart wanting to know why I felt the way I felt.

I think it’s because the guidelines themselves represent an unintentional attack against realism and, worse, tend to BRAND ‘Christian Fiction’ as a whole. People tend to find the strongest example of a thing and then lump everything into that example. But if these guidelines, or anything similar to them, help define ‘Christian’ fiction than surely I must never be classified as such. I never have, nor ever would, write by such guidelines and would run from the term with a loud scream that attracted all the world’s attention.

Thankfully, this does not describe my publisher, or, I am sure, the authors that write for the publisher in question. In fact, it probably serves only a marketing objective–I can’t imagine anyone alive today who would be offended by some of the words on this list, like Priest or Miracle. Either way, the public branding of such a list brings up a critical point all writers and publisher as well as retailers must consider.

Let me explain.

I understand the reasoning of many to avoid offense—loving your neighbor rarely includes intentionally upsetting them. But to avoid offense at the expense of the truth is in itself offensive, yes? There comes a time when avoiding offense itself becomes an offense, ie school segregation. Not offending races by keeping them separate ultimately becomes a greater offense.

But let’s talk about ‘truth’ and offense. Jesus pointed out the truth to the Pharisees by calling them a brood of vipers. They were a clean bunch who followed every part of the law to a ‘T’. They didn’t lie, steal, commit adultery, or use foul language, etc, etc, etc. But he looked past their works and called their hearts impure in light of their high standards and he offended them deeply by speaking this truth.

In our stories we need to concern ourselves with truth. When we write about love, for example, we need to understand that there is more than just love in the world. That there is much ugliness which stands in the face of true love. Our characterization of that ugliness in our writing must be consistent with its true nature. To whitewash the page of that contrast makes a mockery of love’s ability to overcome offense and ugliness.

The Pharisees lived by a code avoiding all that was scandalous, but Jesus embraced that scandal by associating unapologetically with the unclean. They dehumanized the lepers and prostitutes by refusing to associate with them, yet Jesus reached out to them and let them wash his feet. He was beauty in their ashes, the oil of joy in their mourning; they flocked to him and he embraced them as they were.

The disparity between his approach and the Pharisaical approach was in part what got him killed. The word that became flesh walked into the dark corners of thieves, adulterers, heretics, Samaritans, and political oppressors. Jesus derided the religious for their attempt to remain pure by shunning the very real, human condition of others.

Forgive me, I mean no harm, but I can’t help thinking that the following guidelines (not the writers or the publisher) unwittingly do the same. They suggest that in our writing we do what the Pharisees did in their living. We must not be puritanical at the expense of incarnational truth, nor must we forget that the truth is as scandalous today as it was two thousand years ago.

I want you to read the list below and consider with me: Is it any wonder that Christians are branded as out of touch with human need and realism? Many mourn the fact that the world looks at Christianity with such disdain, yet if this list helps define Christianity, would you not scoff as well? The world is laughing at such pettiness—such a puritanical, even Pharisaical standard—that has nothing to do with true faith.

I paste:

Love inspired guidelines

Terms that cannot be used in a (Publisher’s Name) novel:

Arousal
Bastard
Bet/betting
Bishop
Bra
Breast (except for breast cancer if necessary)
Buttocks or butt (alternatively, you can say derriere or backside)
Crap
Damn (try “blast” instead)
Darn
Dern/durn
Devil (except in the religious sense, but the circumstances would be rare)
Dang or Dagnabbit
Doody
Father (when used to describe a religious official)
Fiend
For heaven’s sake (can use “for goodness’ sake” instead)
For the love of Mike
For Pete’s sake
Gee
Geez/jeez (but “sheesh” is acceptable)
Gosh
Golly
Halloween
Harlot
Heat (when used to describe kisses)
Heck
Hell (except in the religious sense, but this would be rare)
Holy cow
Hot/hottie
Hunk
Need/hunger (when used to describe non-food-focused state of being)
Pee
Poop
Panties
Passion
Priest
Sexy
Sex
Sexual attraction
Tempting (as applied to the opposite sex)
St. [name of saint]
Swear, as in “I swear…” - Christian characters are not supposed to swear.
Undergarments - of any kind
Whore

The following are allowed only in the context mentioned:

Angel - only when used in a Biblical context
Miracle - only when used in a Biblical context
Oh my God/Oh, God - ONLY allowed when it’s clearly part of a prayer
Heavenly - only when used in a Biblical context
Although you can say “He cursed” or mention cursing, do not overuse. Furthermore, only non-Christian characters can curse.
Situations to be avoided:
Kissing below the neck
Visible signs or discussions of arousal or sexual attraction or being out of control
Double entendre
Nudity - people changing clothes “on screen” or any character clad only in a towel
Hero and heroine sleeping in the same house without a third party, even if they’re not sleeping together or in the same room

Also, Christian characters should not smoke, drink, gamble, play cards or dance (except in historical novels they may dance but please limit to square dances and balls, no “sexy” dancing like waltzing cheek to cheek), and terms associated with these activities should only be used in connection with bad guys or disapproving of them or such.

Bodily functions, like going to the bathroom, should be mentioned as little as possible and some euphemism may be necessary but we don’t want to sound quaint or absurd.

END

There you have it. As I said, thankfully, my publisher doesn’t hold to such a narrow standard. But make no mistake, these kinds of guidelines publicly characterize Christianity and so called ‘Christian Fiction’ as being out of touch with reality, narrow minded and judgmental, regardless of the publisher’s intention.

And that, my friends, is a challenge to us all. I hope the list is either modified so as not to appear so puritanical (the words Priest, Father, Miracle, Angel and such should certainly be taken off, for example) or narrow regardless of the category.

Join the discussion on Facebook. Be heard.

A) A prophet is seldom welcome in his own stomping grounds.

B) The world conspires to steal what is yours.

C) Both or Other. I have been heard, now it’s your turn.

The story of how Thomas Hunter first entered the Black Forest and forever changed our history began at a time when armies were gathered for a final battle in the valley of Migdon. Green is a story of love, betrayal, and sweeping reversals set within the apocalypse. It is the beginning: the truth behind a saga that has captured the imagination of more than a million readers with the Books of History Chronicles.

But even more, Green brings full meaning to the Circle Series as a whole, reading as both prequel to Black and sequel to White, completing a full circle. This is Book Zero, the Circle Reborn, both the beginning and the end. The preferred starting point for new readers . . . and the perfect climax for the countless fans who’ve experienced Black, Red, and White.

Visit the official Green website by CLICKING HERE.

Read Ted’s latest blog about Green by CLICKING HERE.

Join the conversation on Ted’s Facebook Fan Page by CLICKING HERE.

Until you’ve done it, you can only guess.

Those who’ve read the Circle Series thus far will likely say it’s not wise to start with Green. But then, they have never done that, so can’t really know.

It’s also a bit like the Star Wars Saga. Many debate whether it’s better to start with the ending of Star Wars movies, as they were released, or to start with Phantom Menace. Do you start at the beginning or at the end? For new viewers, most agree that it’s better to start with the end of Star Wars even though it spoils how the series ends.

Still, it’s up for debate. Just remember that if you’ve read Black, Red and White, you are debating what someone else will experience, not you. You are guessing that certain spoilers will create less of an impulse to discover or that they will ruin the experience of those discoveries.

This was at the forefront of my mind as I wrote. So, having finished the first draft, I gave the manuscript to a whole cast of readers who’d read the series and another whole cast who hadn’t read anything. We gave them all an extensive questionnaire and then poured over the responses.

The result was exactly as I had hoped. All who had read Black, Red and White thought Green made for a strong conclusion. Yet they weren’t sure it would make for a strong beginning. How could they know, being forever stamped by their own experience?

And all, to a person, who read Green without any prior knowledge of the series thought it made a perfect beginning and would immediately pick up Black. I quizzed them in great detail and made some small adjustments. Nowhere did they feel lost for lack of knowing, and instead were eager to learn more about the backstory alluded to throughout. All of those things you think of as spoilers, were story questions for the virgin reader. Indeed, many things you think are spoilers actually aren’t apparent UNLESS you’ve read the other books. Knowing the dot is on the wall, you see it every time you enter the room, even though others do not.

I gave all of this much thought as I crafted this most unusual novel. You really have to ask someone who reads the series starting with Green and ending with White how the experience was if you want to know.

Bottom line: Don’t assume that the KNOWLEDGE others acquire in Green will lessen rather than add to the EXPERIENCE of reading the other novels. Take a new reader’s word for it. That’s what I did, and that’s why I called Green Book Zero.

Now debate away. Leave a comment or join the conversation at Facebook.com/teddekker.